“State terrorism” against Palestinians? He has to be joking, Israel is the one terrorized every day and we make Palestinians the VICTIM???? This retard needs to get outside of his racist, bigoted bubble a bit more.

It’s quite amazing that you don’t have the discernment to automatically see the insanity of that statement, Colin. It makes you appear to be a tin-hat lunatic to commend statements such as the above.

Regarding the second statement, again I fail to see how it is anything other than a hyperbolic proof of the pastor’s complete lack of rational thinking outside of his apparent myopic view that all whites are racist. I mean, could it possibly be that blacks who commit crimes should be held accountable for their actions??? Is that possible, or are we in such a Marxist society that no one is responsible for anything?

As for Obama and his connection to Wright… Obama may not believe all of the hate that his pastor spouts, but it is telling of Obama’s discernment and character that he continues to attend that church. Much like it is quite telling of his discernment that he continued to do business (even underhanded business) with Rezko while the guy was under indictment. If Bush attended a Fred Phelps-like church on a regular basis, would you likewise give Bush a pass? Your answer will show us how intellectually honest you are on this matter.

So you would have no problem with someone going to a church with a Fred Phelps-like extreme preacher since church is more than just the teaching??? That’s insane, I would seriously doubt a person’s salvation if they attended a Phelps-like church, just like I would if they attended Wright’s church. He is the shepherd, and his sheep can’t be that far from him ideologically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4

Regarding the level of hatred being preached, I’d say it matters a great deal when voting for president. I’m not evaluating Obama on whether he has good Christian theology based on a sound interpretation of the Bible. I’m evaluating him on his fitness to be President. So I’m not too worried about whether Obama’s pastor is preaching the Bible correctly.

My concern is more about Obama, not Wright. I won’t be worried unless and until I see any evidence that Obama shares Wright’s extreme views–and there is no evidence except that Obama attends his church and is friends with Wright.

I agree that Obama’s theology isn’t what should be voted on. However, whether or not he agrees with racial hate should be a deciding factor. Back when he first entered the race, I checked out his church’s website. I think it can say a lot about a man by looking at the church he attends. And the vibe I immediately got from their website was that they are really into social justice and social peace (as long as it’s pro-black justice, doesn’t matter if it’s unjust to other people groups) and light on spiritual peace and justice.

But, as you just admitted, they are BOTH insane. I would admit that Phelps is worse. But when comparing hatemongers, does worse really matter on this issue?

Darius, I find this comment interesting considering our past discussions.

I’m not saying we should embrace this guy, other radicals or even our enemies as equals in rational debate. However, we must not forsake the message merely on the eccentricities of the messenger.

I agree with that, but linking it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a bit strange. What I find most disturbing is some of his other statements, where he compares Obama to Jesus:

Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich. The Romans were Italians, which means they were Europeans, which means they were white, and they controlled everything in Jesus’ country.

Jew wrote:
I agree with that, but linking it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a bit strange. What I find most disturbing is some of his other statements, where he compares Obama to Jesus:

The comparison is accurate in that in many ways the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks (by my own definition of terrorism). I define terrorism as a deliberate attack against civilians with the intent of breaking the will of a people. While the atomic bombs which were dropped WERE dropped on targets of military significance (weapon’s manufacturing sites), one cannot help but believe that the intent was NOT to disable military capabilities but rather to intimidate civilian populations. Note that “collateral damage” is different from “targeting civilians”, in that the intent varies greatly. One unintentionally kills civilians while eliminating military threats while the other intentionally kills civilians in an attempt to break the will of the people.

One can try to define “terrorism” as non-state sponsored warfare, but doing so results in the statement “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. It also negates the meaning of “state sponsored terrorism”, which by definition would not be terrorism. The only other definition you can use is that terrorism is unjustified use of force, but again many military actions become subject to classification as “terrorism” if the criteria is one’s assessment of the justice of the reasons.

This analysis has led me to the conclusion that either the US was wrong to bomb civilian populations with atomic weapons, or there are cases where “terrorism” (defined as deliberately targeting civilian populations) is a legitimate approach to military strategy. I still haven’t formed firm convictions on this subject yet, but I have been considering whether such acts are reasonable as a show of force in order to prevent greater loss of life on both sides. I have been led to believe this was the case in WW2, and perhaps if true this would justify the decision to deliberately target civilian populations.

(Note also that bombing civilian targets appears to have been common in WW2, which might suggest that if your enemy is targeting civilians it is more legitimate for you to do so as well? Can we really criticize the UK for bombing German cities when Germany spent much of the war bombing London?)

Overall, I don’t consider attacks on the Pentagon or US troops abroad to be “terrorist attacks”. The attacks may still be unjustified and wrong, but at least they are targeted at a military target. There is a big difference between blowing up Alderaan and blowing up the planet on which the rebel alliance is hiding out.

I agree with that, but linking it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a bit strange.

He’s not saying that it’s correlated, but an example of American belligerence overseas. Especially belligerence against civilians.

What I find most disturbing is some of his other statements, where he compares Obama to Jesus

Again, I make no claim to defend the man. But the statements cited are not crazy. Naturally, the statement you cited is pretty off-the-wall - and I’m sure he has a whole catalogue of such statements. But the premise is that he “hates America” - which is not reflected in accurately critical statements of our foreign policy and race relations. We would be wise to consider the arguments people make rather than demonize them as “America haters” (not that you are doing this, but many are using this issue to pursue these ends).

Colin wrote:
But the statements cited are not ignorant, irrational, racist or anti-American. It is not a crazy thing to say that 9/11 was not a surprise, unmotivated attack. It’s not insane for black people to speak out against racist policies and actions on behalf of a federal and local governments which are not responsive to them as equal citizens.

Is it your belief then that deliberately targeting civilian targets of an occupying nation* is a legitimate military technique? I fully understand that from some of these people’s perspective, attacks on US military targets might be legitimate. However, two of the three attacks on 9/11 were NOT against military targets. Instead, they were designed to kill thousands of civilians. As I’m sure you are aware, the actual death count on 9/11 was far less than anyone would have anticipated in planning it.

Also, can you provide some examples of recent example (last 20 years) of GOVERNMENT engaging in racist policies against blacks? I am fully aware that racism was not uncommon a fairly short time ago, but with the implementation of laws protecting against it such matters can readily be addressed in the court system. Anyone suffering from government racism today can likely expect to get significant compensation from a lawsuit (and rightfully so).

* I do not think the US can legitimately be considered to have been or currently be “occupying” the Middle East, but that is the position of most terrorist organizations. Even if true, it wouldn’t justify their actions.

But the statements cited are not crazy.

Can you provide evidence that the US “supported” (as opposed to ignored) terrorism in South Africa and Palestine? Such evidence would vindicate your claim that these statements are not irrational.

Come on. He said Jesus is a black man.

He’s not saying that it’s correlated, but an example of American belligerence overseas. Especially belligerence against civilians.

Calling America “belligerent” in defending itself is the height of arrogance. We were being attacked repeatedly by an unrelenting enemy who had started the war, so we ended it in the best way we knew how (much like the Allies helped end the European part of the war by bombing Berlin to smithereens). A government is nothing more than the people it represents, and, as Atanamis alluded to, civilian casualties may very well be legitimate (even to the point of intentionally targeting them).

Even though I think it was right and honorable for McCain to have said these this, I have to wonder whether he said it because of his recent backing by John Hagee and Rod Parsley. He has been criticized mostly because he has not repudiated Hagee’s alleged anti-Catholic remarks.

I do think there is a difference between being supported by someone, and showing your own support for them by attending their church. But I wouldn’t want anything my pastor says to directly reflect on my reputation. I love my pastor, but I don’t always agree with him. He probably wouldn’t agree with me on many things if I really told him what I thought about them.

Is it your belief then that deliberately targeting civilian targets of an occupying nation* is a legitimate military technique? I fully understand that from some of these people’s perspective, attacks on US military targets might be legitimate. However, two of the three attacks on 9/11 were NOT against military targets. Instead, they were designed to kill thousands of civilians. As I’m sure you are aware, the actual death count on 9/11 was far less than anyone would have anticipated in planning it.

This was not my assertion. I would argue that the 9/11 attacks were illegitimate. However, they were neither unmotivated nor surprising (or at last should not have been, had we not demonized the messengers so as to disregard their threats).

Also, can you provide some examples of recent example (last 20 years) of GOVERNMENT engaging in racist policies against blacks? I am fully aware that racism was not uncommon a fairly short time ago, but with the implementation of laws protecting against it such matters can readily be addressed in the court system. Anyone suffering from government racism today can likely expect to get significant compensation from a lawsuit (and rightfully so).

Most of these policies that come to mind are indirect (as I mentioned) - such as the war on drugs. While the policy itself is not inherently racist, the effects amount to a legitimate perception of racism, regardless of intent. Sadie is more of an expert on this than me, but often the urban planning of cities involves eminent domain being exercised on black areas - and zoning laws (again, indirectly) supporting segregation in cities.

More direct actions such as racial profiling and police enforcement are heavily against black people and other minorities.

I agree. I just mainly wanted to make note of how McCain handled the question on the record.

Can you provide evidence that the US “supported” (as opposed to ignored) terrorism in South Africa and Palestine? Such evidence would vindicate your claim that these statements are not irrational.

The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine. However, the Israeli military is in many ways a surrogate of the US. They operate with US funds, US weapons and with the direct approval of a strong alliance with the US. Up until recently, America was wholly sided with Israel on that issue.

I know of no evidence to support the problems in South Africa being government related.

Come on. He said Jesus is a black man.

And I called this statement off-the-wall and made complete allowances for other crazy statements. If you will reread my response, you will see that I separated your cited statement and the one’s originally cited.

The statements I cited are not crazy. There is a lot of important and rational criticism in them. We must not shoot the messenger.

civilian casualties may very well be legitimate (even to the point of intentionally targeting them).

Though it won’t matter to you, because your ethics are relative to whatever “side” you’re on, I am going to cite this for posterity.

I’m not so willing to concede that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a legitimate part of that discussion. Those were wartime decisions, made during a real all-out declared war (nothing like this so-called War on Terror). And hello! It’s not the Japanese who are attacking the United States. I’m pretty sure that Osama bin Laden isn’t mad at America for what we did to the Japanese.

you keep defending the guy as rational

I have not done this once. I am not defending this man. I am arguing that despite the fact that he’s crazy, some of his statements are quite wise.

There is something valid to be said for questioning US foreign policy. I’m not sure that Wright is making valid criticisms, though. It sounds more like he’s ranting and pushing the limits of coherency.

I guess I can agree with Wright on some things: American foreign policy is wrong, and America’s war on drugs is harmful to the nation. But I can’t agree with Wright on why he believes those things, because his reasoning and his worldview are completely tied up with his racial identity.

I agree partly. That’s a great argument for bombing Hiroshima. It’s not a justification for bombing Nagasaki three days later.

Just kidding.

Lighten up, man. I’m just having some fun. I’m not as equipped to argue this as well as Colin, so I just say, “Yeah! What he said!” I agree with him on this, so I just defer to the master.

I hate to second-guess wartime decisions made 60 years ago, but as I recall it was a point of debate even at that time.

Again, Colin, if you bother to read what I (and Atanamis, for that matter) have said about the issue of Hiroshima and WWII, the ethics are not relative. It is called ending the war in the quickest way possible, and if that means punishing the civilians of the invading/attacking enemy to get that done, so be it.

If anyoen here didn’t read Atanamis’ statements on atomic bombs, it was you. You are revealing that by citing his claims in order to promote an ad numerum.

I’m not going to get diverted into another unrelated WWII ethics discussion. The point that is relevant is that those bombings were attacks on civilians, which were justified in a similar way to terrorist justifications of similar actions.

Your next three posts are textbook ad nausium fallacies.

They were making more, but at the time they had only three bombs. They tested the first in New Mexico, then dropped the other two on Japan. Certainly more bombs were in the pipeline, but when Japan surrendered America didn’t have any more bombs ready to be dropped.

“Well, didn’t Falwell say it live on TV? Wright isn’t as high profile. He’s just a little guy.”

I do not agree or disagree with Falwell’s comments. They may very well have an element of truth to them, but no one can say for sure unless God revealed that to them. I don’t think anyone can say that his comments, however offensive to some, we’re not incompatible with God’s judgment as recorded in the scriptures.

It really doesn’t work to scrutinize a theological argument in the political arena. However, both Falwell and Wright espoused theology with political overtones to say the least. So that makes them fair game. But it also undermines whatever biblical truth their statements may have contained.

Colin wrote: The statements I cited are not crazy. There is a lot of important and rational criticism in them. We must not shoot the messenger.

You have yet to provide ANY justification for the position that Wright has EVER made a logically defensible statement. I know NOTHING about Wright other than what you wrote in your article, and the CITED STATEMENTS make Wright sound like a lunatic with little historical or cultural knowledge. From you own posts:
“I would argue that the 9/11 attacks were illegitimate.”
“While the policy itself is not inherently racist, the effects amount to a legitimate perception of racism, regardless of intent.”
“The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine.”
“I know of no evidence to support the problems in South Africa being government related.”

In no case did you cite anything more than “perception of racism”, and this in regard to targeting crime that DOES take place in black communities, and DOES result in a highly disproportionate of blacks being murdered by blacks each year. Perhaps this would be reduced by a change in drug laws, but to argue that drug laws are inherently racist is supremely ignorant. I am stunned to see such complete disregard for fact in a blog written by you.

Note: NOBODY was surprised that Al Quaeda would want to harm us or what their claimed justifications were. Wright is stating that the terrorism is a legitimate response to similar actions of the US overseas. I have seen no evidence that the US or ISRAEL have deliberately targeted high civilian concentrations for death. Again, I still believe a retraction of this article is in order until such evidence is provided. Failing to have such evidence supporting this “prophet” is irresponsible of the author.

Darius T wrote: Calling America “belligerent” in defending itself is the height of arrogance. We were being attacked repeatedly by an unrelenting enemy who had started the war, so we ended it in the best way we knew how (much like the Allies helped end the European part of the war by bombing Berlin to smithereens).

The only real question regarding the dropping of atomic weapons relates to the morality of killing civilians. The bombs were dropped to shock the Japanese into surrendering quickly rather than to destroy their ability to make war. The targets did have military value, but that wasn’t the primary purpose. The comparison IS meaningful because the terrorists claim to be a legitimate force using terrorism to respond to legitimate provocations in a war which they HAVE declared.

Jew wrote: I’m not so willing to concede that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a legitimate part of that discussion. Those were wartime decisions, made during a real all-out declared war (nothing like this so-called War on Terror).

I think you’ve totally missed the point. CLEARLY Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not directly related here, but what they do is demonstrate that the US is not above targeting civilians in large numbers in some circumstances. The question is whether the attack on 9/11 could be justified under ANY circumstances, and the answer is that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate then there ARE some instances where such an attack would be valid. From Al Queda’s perspective, they HAVE declared a war on the US due to legitimate provocations. Osama doesn’t care what we did to the Japanese, but he DOES feel he has the same right to attack our civilians as the US dit to attack Japanese civilians. His “provocation” is the involvement of the US in the Middle East (which is mandatory for US national interests so long as we are dependent on their oil).

The examples he chose were simply wrong. Amazingly, we pretty much kept our fingers out of South Africa and the Palistinians seem much more determined to commit national suicide than to work things out. This is one case where America has truly invested time and money to try to fix it. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of troops that had been invading Japanese held islands for three years were pretty grateful for the atomic bombs. The Japanese probably suffered a lot less casualties from the bombings than would have ocurred if we had invaded. That being said, many believe the primary reason for dropping the atomic bombs (there were only two to drop, we shot our wad on uranium and plutonium making the first three) was to keep uncle joe stalin from wandering off the reservation.

He could have chosen to discuss (rant about??) the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the cause celebre of all of middle east religious groups, or installing the shah of iran, or the fact the cia sponsered saddam husseins (of all people) assassination attempt of Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, etc.,etc.,etc.. These type examples would have buttressed his contention that American interference in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the world would, at some inevitable point, have tangible consequences within our own borders. I have read the constitution pretty thoroughly and can’t seem to find the part about promoting democracy in other countries anywhere. Did I miss it?

On the other hand the true impetuous behind Al Queda, like almost all such religious and nationalist movements comes down to power and/or money. Western civilization, with America representing the pinnacle (at least to us), is a tempting target to deflect attention away from the total abject failure of the middle eastern religious and state leaders to provide any improvement, and usually there is a distinct loss, in the standard of living of the people.

Bottom line, is pointing out we piss people off, no matter how poor an example he choose, hating America? I guess it depends on whether you are part of the America love or leave it crowd. I think he has a point but is out of line in how he makes it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=

You have yet to provide ANY justification for the position that Wright has EVER made a logically defensible statement. I know NOTHING about Wright other than what you wrote in your article, and the CITED STATEMENTS make Wright sound like a lunatic with little historical or cultural knowledge.

I never will provide justification for Wright - I think he’s nuts.

From you own posts:
“I would argue that the 9/11 attacks were illegitimate.”
“While the policy itself is not inherently racist, the effects amount to a legitimate perception of racism, regardless of intent.”
“The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine.”
“I know of no evidence to support the problems in South Africa being government related.”

In no case did you cite anything more than “perception of racism”, and this in regard to targeting crime that DOES take place in black communities, and DOES result in a highly disproportionate of blacks being murdered by blacks each year. Perhaps this would be reduced by a change in drug laws, but to argue that drug laws are inherently racist is supremely ignorant. I am stunned to see such complete disregard for fact in a blog written by you.

My point was not that Wright is 100% accurate, but that a) his comments do not mean he “hates America” b) his comments have some truth in them

I do not need to prove that he’s even 100% factually right. Look at Wrights quote and look at my argument. Wright does cite specific things he thinks are racist - and a lot of black people feel this way, and from what I know of their perspective on things, it’s not crazy. Wright’s comments, even if outlandish, reveal a very real reality that many blacks feel there is a lot of racism in this country.

I can be faulted for hijacking Wright’s statements and discussing government racism. I will admit that this isn’t one of my most well-informed subjects, but this has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the article or even Wright.

But even for my part - I am not arguing that drug laws are inherently racist - but they produce an effect that can be perceived thusly. That is a FACT. Remember, racism is (like many other “crimes of intent”) highly subjective. For this reason, we can’t easily “prove” it. So I will take responsibility for going down a path where there isn’t a lot of logic to begin with - and where I am ill-equipped. However, all this grand talk about retractions reveals a lack of reading with precision on this other issues. Again, I will admit my fault in picking issues to jump on (apart from Wright) that are tough to quantify.

Colin wrote: Wright does cite specific things he thinks are racist - and a lot of black people feel this way, and from what I know of their perspective on things, it’s not crazy. Wright’s comments, even if outlandish, reveal a very real reality that many blacks feel there is a lot of racism in this country.

I am willing to acknowledge that perceptions of racism do exist. I went to a predominantly black church for two years in college (until I graduated), and fully recognize from statements made from the pulpit that many blacks feel discriminated against. From conversations with these people though, I never heard a single case of unequal standards. The problem is that blacks in the US are being undereducated in primary schools, often come from uneducated broken families that do not encourage learning, and tend to have an expectation that the world will give them stuff. This is the result of faulty efforts to rectify the problems caused by overt racism that took place a generation ago, which have resulted in broken families, lack of respect for education, and lack of respect for law enforcement. There is very little overt discrimination, but it will likely take at least a generation for these suspicions and legitimate problems to be addressed. Expressing them as Wright does though is in no way “wise” or “prophetic”.

Bob, you are right on the money on all counts regarding the history. There are many valid reasons to criticize US foreign policy over the last hundred years, and clear reasons why Al Quaeda hates us. The statements made by Wright (and supported by Colin in his article) on the subject though could not be much more wrong (well, ok the “they hate our freedom” line is probably worse!). We should undoubtedly be assessing decisions made over the last century (including in the WW1 and WW2). Mistakes were made. When someone starts accusing the US of things like supporting apartheid in South America though, they have ceased to be doing honest assessment and are instead making things up. I think a valid argument can be made that randomly making up connections between the US and atrocities committed overseas qualifies as “hating America”. Criticizing valid connections is entirely different than making up your own.

Darius, I agree with your assessment and with Bob’s regarding why we used the bomb in Japan. Overall, I believe we were right to do so and that doing so was the best thing for both the US and Japan. That said, it is a difference in justifications rather than types of action when compared to 9/11. Under your morality, had 9/11 ended a war of oppression by the US against Al Quaeda and resulted in lower total casualties, it would have been a valid attack. From their perspective, the US did start the war of oppression and “might” have caused us to pull out of the Middle East reducing casualties there. The attack therefore changes from “wrong no matter what” to “wrong if you don’t believe the US was the initial aggressor or that the attack had a real change to end the war. I happen to disbelieve both points, so even under this definition I feel just in saying 9/11 was an immoral attack. Others though might disagree on these statements of fact.

Exactly. However, neither of these were the case. The USA was NOT at war with Al Qaeda nor directly oppressing Al Qaeda (since it is not a state, but rather a community of terrorists) though Al Qaeda was perhaps at war with America (Clinton treated Al Qaeda like a criminal organization). We were not causing any more casualties in the Middle East with our presence (in actuality, we have been at times a pacifying player). And Al Qaeda’s motive for the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with lowering casualties or ending a “war” (Al Qaeda exists to cause terror, not to end wars and political strife).

Colin, I’m going to accept that “never will [you] provide justification for Wright [because you] think he’s nuts.” Unfortunately your article seemed to indicate that you thought Wright made some good points, which is why so many responders jumped on you. Perhaps we misread your meaning, though statements like “Wright should be heralded as a prophet” definitely did not help. I’m not asking you to prove Wright 100% accurate, merely to justify the statement that “despite the fact that he’s crazy, some of his statements are quite wise.” You have yet to demonstrate ANY reason why ANY of his arguments should be considered wise.

Wright is a prophet in that he was one of the first people, when most other Americans (including myself) were looking for the big red button to push on the middle east, who actually described the incident in a historical context of a long line of questionable tactics by the US and our allies. Obviously this is not biblical prophesy, but a useful figure of speech (see #7 definition for “prophet” on dictionary.com for something like what I mean).

I have indeed provided several reasons in the comments and in the article why some of his statements could be considered wise. I will, because I respect you in debate, gladly list them again:

- America, to much of the rest of the world, has stood for wanton destruction of life, liberty and property - not the upholding of these fundamental values. This doesn’t justify 9/11, but Wright is speaking truth when he notes that Americans should not be surprised in the slightest to see that all of the aggression our foreign policy reaped on 9/11.

- It is not a crazy thing to say that 9/11 was not a surprise, unmotivated attack.

- The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine. However, the Israeli military is in many ways a surrogate of the US. They operate with US funds, US weapons and with the direct approval of a strong alliance with the US. Up until recently, America was wholly sided with Israel on that issue.

In addition to this, any person understanding a broader context of what I have written on the cite (such as yourself), has seen me mention (ad nausium) reasoning on foreign policy, 9/11 and terrorism. Obviously, these were written outside the context of this article, however, they do provide plenty of arguments along similar lines that Wright can touch on.

However, I want to make one final call to prevent too much diversion and reiterate that my central point is that asking whether this man “hates America” is not relevant. The real question should be does anything he says have any merit. I am arguing that there is some (maybe only .3% - but the .3% that is good should not be dismissed because of the other 99.7%).

The real question should be does anything he says have any merit. I am arguing that there is some (maybe only .3% - but the .3% that is good should not be dismissed because of the other 99.7%).

The the extent that his views are in line with bob’s post above, I think there is merit. My problem is that his “valid observation” uses invalid evidences to back up its point. This leads me to believe that he was merely lucky to get the right “final answer”. When someone does a math problem and misses every single step until the final solution, the fact that their final number matches the key means they either got lucky or they cheated. By mentioning things like South Africa, Wright demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of US foreign policy.

The fact that he was right about US intervention being used as justification for 9/11 is simply luck. I’m STILL in favor of hitting a big red button and blowing Al Quaeda off the face of the world. The US may have made some terrible mistakes in its foreign policy over the last century, but that in no way justifies the tactics used by Al Quaeda to fight us. Wright sounds like a man who “hates America”. Any correlation between what he says and truth is purely coincidental, much in the same way a stopped clock is correct twice daily. The fact that a stopped clock is accurate once does not mean it should not be ignored the rest of the time. (Note: I don’t actually think this tarnishes Obama unless we hear him supporting Wright’s politics.)

I read the article, and I would say that I am in agreement with it basically. I saw the actual interview with Jeremiah Wright done with Sean Hannity of Fox News that was referenced in the piece. It was, as usual, unfair and was set up to make Wright look like a racist without giving him the chance to defend his position before time ran out. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have racist ideas, just that the interview was very one-sided.

Although I have reservations about this type of theology, I see it no less troubling than Romney’s Mormonism. Many conservative Christians were willing to overlook that. If heresy can be measured by degree, the Mormon church definitely has one up on Black Theology. I mean, when you begin to identify Christ with the Devil, you are on dangerous ground. And while Black Theology twists the Bible to mean what they want it to, Moromonism created books in addition to the Bible to build their religion.

Good point. But I guess I just had reservations because I didn’t know to what extent Mormon theology could potentially shape someone’s politics. To me, the one is overt and the other covert. I don’t think its any secret that many Evangelicals were confident in George W. Bush because they felt his being a Christian would affect policy in the Middle East with respect to Israel. I frankly don’t trust anyone to divorce their religion from their politics.